Ex Parte Sung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

11392520 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/392,520 03/29/2006 Sang-Kyung Sung 678-3886 5614
66547 7590 09/05/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG-KYUNG SUNG, JOON-GOO PARK, and
SUNG-JIN PARK
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,5201
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 51—82. Appellants have canceled claims 1—50. App. Br. 9. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. §6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to push-to-
talk-over cellular (“PoC”) communication technology and, particularly, “for
transmitting session participation information of PoC users participating in a
PoC group session.” Spec. 1:16—20.
In a disclosed embodiment, an originating PoC client may request a
group session in a Session Initiation Protocol (“SIP”) INVITE request
message. Spec. 16:4—7, Fig. 6. The SIP INVITE request is forwarded from
a Controlling Function server associated with the originating PoC client to
Participating Function server(s) associated with the invited PoC client(s).
Spec. 16:5—7, Fig. 6. The Specification further discloses a first client
responds to the request by sending a “200 OK” response to the Controlling
Function server (via its own Participating Function server). Spec. 16:7—9,
Fig. 6. The originating PoC client establishes a first session with the PoC
client “and then receives the session participation information in response
later through the defined TBCP [(Talk Burst Control Protocol)] Report
message.” Spec. 16:11—13, Fig. 6. The TBCP Report can include an
identity of the other PoC client participating in the session, as well as a
successful response (200 OK message). Spec. 16:11—13, 19-21; Fig. 6.
Thus, according to the Specification, “the PoC client participating in the
session can receive the information of the PoC client participating in the
session later without an SIP subscription request of the group information,
so that media transmission can be efficiently performed.” Spec. 17:2—5.
Claim 51 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
2
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
51. A method for transmitting information of a respondent
participating in a group session, the method comprising the steps of:
transmitting, by an originating server to a terminating server, a
call request message of an originating client;
receiving, by the originating server, a response message to the
call request message, from one of a plurality of clients participating in
the group session; and
transmitting, by the originating server to the originating client,
a report message corresponding to the response message,
wherein the report message informs that the originating client
successfully establishes the group session regarding the call request
message.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 51—82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Comneon et al., Architecture V2.0.8 (2004-06), Technical
Specification, Push-to-talk over Cellular (POC); Architecture; PoC Release
2.0, 1—49 (2004) (“Comneon”) and Open Mobile Alliance, PoC User Plane
Version 1, Draft Version 1.0.12, 1—151 (2004) (“OMA”). Final Act. 3—33.
ANALYSIS2
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Comneon and OMA teaches or suggests (i) receiving by the originating
server, a response message to a call request message, from one of plurality
of clients participating in the group session; (ii) transmitting, by the
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
April 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 21, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 20, 2016 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed January 28, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
originating server to the originating client, a report message corresponding
to the response message; and (iii) wherein the report message informs that
the originating client successfully establishes the group session regarding the
call request message. App. Br. 3—7; Reply Br. 1^4. We address Appellants’
arguments seriatim.
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Comneon teaches that
at least one of the plurality of clients sends a response message (i.e., in
response to a call request message) to the originating server. App. Br. 3^4.
In particular, Appellants assert, as illustrated in Figure 8 of Comneon, the
call request message never reaches the invited client (i.e., UE B) because UE
B uses auto answer mode. App. Br. 4 (citing Comneon, Fig. 8). Thus,
Appellants argue the call request message (i.e., INVITE) does not reach the
invited client (UE B), but rather only reaches the Participating PoCS (PTT
over Cellular Server), which sends the response (i.e., 200 OK) to the
originating server. App. Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because
they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. In
finding Comneon discloses the disputed limitation, the Examiner relies on
Section 8.5.2 and Figure 10 of Comneon. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 33, see also
Final Act. 33 (indicating that Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to
the Examiner’s rejection in both the current and prior Office Actions).
Different from the Auto Answer procedure of Figure 8, in Figure 10
of Comneon, the client (UE B) is in the Manual Answer mode. See
Comneon, Fig. 10.
4
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
Figure 10 of Comneon is illustrative and is reproduced below.
Figure* 1ft i-iitt.1 Alt.'flia and Manual, atiswor gu'ttCGfiurft
Figure 10 of Comneon illustrates various messaging between an originating
client (UE A), Participating PoC Servers (PoCS A and PoCS B), and an
invited client (UE B). Comneon 32.
As shown in Figure 10 of Comneon, a call request message (i.e.,
INVITE) is sent from UE A to Participating PoC Server A (1), which sends
an INVITE request to Participating PoC Server B (2). Comneon 32.
Participating PoC Server B forwards the INVITE to UE B (3). Comneon 32.
UE B sends both a “180 Ringing” response (4) and, upon manual answer of
UE B, a “200 OK” response (7). Comneon 32. The “200 OK” response is
sent from UE B to Participating PoC Server B (7), which forwards the
response to Participating PoC Server A (i.e., the originating server) (8).
Comneon 32.
Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Comneon teaches the
originating server (PoCS A) receives a response message (“200 OK”) to a
5
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
call request message (INVITE) from one of a plurality of clients (UE B).
Ans. 33.
Additionally, Appellants belatedly argue for the first time in the Reply
Brief that, as shown in Figure 10 of Comneon, UE B sends a “180 Ringing”
message in response to the INVITE call request message and that after
sending the “180 Ringing” response UE B send the “200 OK” response.
Reply Br. 2.
This argument was not made in the Appeal Brief, but could have been,
and is not responsive to any new evidence set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer.3 In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, this
argument is untimely and deemed waived.
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in
the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
[Ejxaminer’s answer, including any designated new ground of
rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
37 CFR § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d
1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and
evidence not presented timely in the principal brief, will not be considered
when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why
the argument could not have been presented in the principal brief); Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply
brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made
in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were
not.”).
3 Contrary to Appellants’ suggestion, the Examiner did not change positions
or rely on different portions of Comneon. Compare Final Act. 3—4, with
Ans. 33 (both relying on Section 8.5.2 and Figure 10 of Comneon).
6
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
Nonetheless, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because, as shown
in Figure 10 of Comneon, the “200 OK” message is sent from UE B in
response to the INVITE message. There is no intervening message between
UE B sending the “180 Ringing” response and the “200 OK” response.
Thus, Comneon teaches the “200 OK” message is sent in response to the call
request message (i.e., INVITE).
Appellants also argue the cited references (particularly, OMA) fail to
teach or suggest “transmitting, by the originating server to the originating
client, a report message corresponding to the response message.” App.
Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend the Talk Burst Control Protocol
(TBCP) deny message of OMA is sent from the receiving PoC server to the
requesting (i.e., originating) PoC server to indicate that a talk burst request
was denied. App. Br. 4 (citing OMA § 6.5.4). Appellants assert that the
TBCP deny message of OMA is in response to a talk burst request, rather
than a call request message, as recited in claim 51. App. Br. 4.
Again, Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner and, thus, do not demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s findings. The Examiner does not rely on Section 6.5.4 (TBCP
Talk Burst Deny message), but rather on Section 6.5.3 and Table 3, of
OMA. Final Act. 4, 33; Ans. 33.
Further, the Examiner explains a talk burst is a type of call and, thus,
the claimed “call request message” is met by OMA’s talk burst request
message. Ans. 34. As further defined by OMA, a TBCP talk burst request
“is used by the PoC Client to request permission from the PoC Server to
send a talk burst.” OMA 19. The Examiner’s finding is supported by OMA
7
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
and Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s mapping. See
Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Appellants further argue that the deny message of OMA fails to teach
“wherein the report message informs that the originating client successfully
establishes the group session regarding the call request,” as recited in claim
51. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants assert “OMA
teaches ‘no permission’, which indicates that the PoC client is not permitted
to send an RTP media packet.” App. Br. 4, 6 (citing OMA §§ 6.2.5.1.2 and
6.2.5.2). Additionally, Appellants contend the TBCP Grant message teaches
a message from a server to requesting client (granting permission to talk),
whereas the claim requires the report message corresponds to the response
message to the call request and not to the call request. App. Br. 5. Further,
Appellants assert OMA’s TBCP Grant message also does not indicate
whether the originating PoC client successfully establishes the group
session. App. Br. 6.
As Appellants acknowledge, the Examiner relies on the Talk Burst
Grant message, not the deny message, as teaching a report message informs
that the originating client successfully establishes the group session
regarding the call request message. See App. Br. 5.4 Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments related to the Talk Burst deny message are not
persuasive of Examiner error as they are not responsive to the Examiner’s
rejection. See Final Act. 33; Ans. 34—35.
4 Appellants state the Examiner “changed the focus of the rejection,” but we
note that the change followed an amendment by Appellants (filed Nov. 14,
2014) to remove claim language reciting the report message “comprises . . .
a reject response” from claim 51.
8
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
The Examiner finds OMA discloses “the TBCP Talk Burst Granted
message is an action from the PoC Server performing the Controlling PoC
Function to inform the requesting PoC Client that it has been granted the
permission to send a Talk Burst.” Ans. 34—35 (citing OMA § 6.5.3,
Table 3). Additionally, the Examiner finds OMA teaches the TBCP Talk
Burst Granted message is “report message corresponding to the response
message . . . [and which] informs that the originating client successfully
establishes the group session regarding the call request message.” Ans. 35—
38 (citing OMA, Fig. 13). In particular, the Examiner finds OMA teaches
two separate TBCP Talk Burst Granted messages—a first TBCP Talk Burst
Granted message from PoC Server X to PoC Server A (the Examiner maps
this message to a response message), and a second TBCP Talk Burst
Granted message from PoC Server A to PoC Client A (i.e., the claimed
report message corresponding to the response message). Ans. 36—37 (citing
OMA Fig. 13).
9
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
Figure 13 of OMA is illustrative and is reproduced below.
PoC Client A Hams Network PoC Network X
Figure 13 of OMA illustrates the message flow when a PoC user initiates a
PoC session. OMA 120. As shown in Figure 13, the PoC Session
establishment is an on-demand PoC Session initiated by a SIP INVITE
request. OMA 121 (Note 1). OMA further discloses the TBCP Burst
Granted message may be sent before, during, or after the PoC Session is
established. OMA 121. Also as shown in Figure 13, PoC Server X sends a
TBCP Talk Burst Granted message (1) to PoC Server A, which then
modifies the message (e.g., IP address and port information) and sends a
TBCP Talk Burst Granted message (2) to PoC Client A. OMA 121. When
10
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
PoC Client A receives the TBCP Talk Burst Granted message, it may begin
sending RTP media packets. OMA 122.
We agree with the Examiner that the first the TBCP Talk Burst
Granted message (i.e., from PoC Server X to PoC Server A) teaches the
claimed response message to the request message.5 Further, we agree that
the second TBCP Talk Back Granted message is a report message that
corresponds to the response message (i.e., the first TBCP Talk Back Granted
message). This is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which similarly
discloses a TBCP Granted message as an example of a Report message. See
Spec. 16:11—13; Fig. 6 (items S209, S210). We agree the TBCP Talk Back
Granted message (i.e., report message) is transmitted from the originating
server to the originating client. See OMA § 6.5.3, see also OMA, Fig. 13.
Additionally, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, by receiving the
TBCP Talk Burst Granted message, PoC Client A (“the originating client”)
is informed not only that the talk burst was granted, but also that the group
PoC session has been successfully established. See OMA, Fig. 13.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the TBCP Talk Burst Granted
message in OMA’s Figure 13, teaches or suggests “wherein the report
message informs that the originating client successfully established the
group session regarding the call request message.” Ans. 35—38 (citing
OMA, Fig. 13); Final Act. 4 (citing OMA 81—83).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 51. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
5 OMA also discloses the TBCP Talk Back Granted message and the “200
OK” response may be combined. See OMA 22—23, Fig. 3.
11
Appeal 2017-002109
Application 11/392,520
independent claims 62 and 73, which recite similar limitations and were
argued with claim 51, collectively. App. Br. 3. Additionally, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 52—61, 63—72, and 74—82, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately. App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 51—82.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
12